Lightweight Duran v Middleweight Zale, who wins, and why?
-
-
Ouf rough fight
what kind of shape do they come in at?
I think if Duran is in peak peak shape he can decision Zale with his talent -
You think 135lbs Duran can decision160lbs Zale?Originally posted by them_apples View Post
Can you name a reiging lightweight Champion who ,coming in at the lightweight limit , ever beat a reigning middleweight champion?Comment
-
Maybe he can’tOriginally posted by Bronson66 View Post
I just think Duran can pull it off
if you watch the HD version of Duran vs Hagler I would really hate to say it - but he beat Hagler. Its only last year after Top rank posted the fight in good quality you can see Hagler barely landed a glove on Duran and Duran tagged him flush many times - its just Haglers head doesn’t budge so it looks ineffective. Look at their faces after the fight.
knowing how you think though - you like to parot whatever the general consensus is over personal observation- you will say Hagler did enough to win.
Hagler didn’t do anything and thats why he bitched and complained about that fight his entire career. He always “needed a few more rounds�?“I’m no fool - Duran is hard to hit�?“in the last round I felt I was getting to him�?br />
I’m not saying I am better than you Bronson - but my job requires paying very close attention to detail and I can tell you Duran did not lose that fight. At the very least a drawComment
-
Yeah I just go along with the majority I dont know anything about boxing at all,it's a good job there are people like you here to educate me.Originally posted by them_apples View PostComment
-
Whether or not you feel Duran won that fight is really itrelevant; as Duran weighed in near the MW limit when he fought Hagler.Originally posted by them_apples View Post
This post asks whether Duran at 135 could beat a HOF level MW who is weighing in as a MW (though one who on a relatively P4P level is not as good as Duran).
This post, like a few others out there right now, are designed to show the ridiculousness of those who argue that size does not matter.
Its akin to me claiming that 2006 SFW version of Manny Pacquiao would beat the 2015 version of Deontay Wilder in a head to head match. Then citing Manny's superior skillset, or better stamina due to him carrying less weight. In the end, Wilder being significantly taller, longer, and bigger is enough for him to win that fightComment
-
For me the the whole issue of size is settled because I put it into words I could accept. The only rational ground here is middle ground. Mr. Apples will only allow himself to say that a featherweight vs a heavyweight would look awkward. He is a major proponent of SDM and not a middle grounder. Finding himself mainly in the minority he has to be a bit more vigorous in his summaries, I understand. This defense of overstating the case comes from an egalitarian desire that seeks to anchor in the historical narrative more firmly the fact than some men do routinely defy their size.
The literal short truth is: sometimes size matters.
Well, it always matters, as Margie would say. But sometimes it cannot overcome. Maybe that is better: sometimes size cannot overcome. And of course there are limits beyond which size always matters and will always overcome if the much larger man also has a modicum of talent. It does not take a great heavyweight to beat an ATG lightweight, a decent one would do for most occasions.
It is also true that the smaller the fighter, the better his chances in many instances. I would bet on Willie Pep over Valuev any day. The red couldn't lay a glove the wisp. While a super middleweight's chances might decrease because he cannot get in and out fast enough. I would predict Calzaghe to easily mop the floor with the big red too.
them_apples
likes this.
Comment
-
The very first example that should yield does yield. Daniel Mendoza. And again for HW.Originally posted by Bronson66 View Post
When someone tells you the reason for the divisions is the time limitations and then you talk about Duran and Zales I think it's pretty obvious what you are ducking and why.
Out of your fifteen or so cry baby threads that cherry pick details which of them do you think really actually addresses weight in relation to time?
Duran Zales?
Usyk Fury?
Spinks v Hagler?
Loughran v Carnera?
Robinson v Walcott?
Which of these addresses longer durations favor smaller men?
How does any of this debunk the idea smaller men have better stamina?
I'll tell you want it does do. It lets you get a wee circle jerk in and makes you feel better because you being 80 million years old still haven't the maturity to admit being wrong. What is Robinson vs Walcott over 15 rounds? Is that what I told you is possible or is that what you purposed to others to get the answers you want because you're too small to have a real and direct conversation.
I do respect you but it's this that gets you called names. what else should I call a man who runs away and makes double digit threads to sooth themselves? Give it a spin, no one here gives a damn, no one here says anything other than you know you've hurt Ivich when he makes a million threads looking for secured answers. Like a child.Comment
-
Comment